Union Of India vs M. Ravi Babu, Irts
2025 Latest Caselaw 2611 Tel

Telangana High Court

Union Of India vs M. Ravi Babu, Irts on 27 February, 2025

Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili

Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
                                         AND
       THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                     Writ Petition No.17510 of 2021

ORDER:

(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

Aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2020, passed in

O.A.No.478 of 2020 by the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), the

present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned Standing

Counsel appearing for the petitioners.

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners

had contended that the respondent has worked as an IRTS

officer in the Higher Administrative Grade and was due to

retire on 31.08.2020. However, it was noticed that the

respondent was paid additional increment to which he was

not entitled. When it has come to the notice of the

petitioners, they have taken steps to recover the excess

amount paid to the respondent. Accordingly, the petitioners

have issued proceedings, dated 07.08.2020 ordering recovery

of excess amount from the respondent with effect from AKS,J & ETD,J ::2:: wp_17510_2021

01.07.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent has

approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.478 of 2020 and

the Tribunal vide order, dated 09.10.2020 was pleased to

allow the O.A. in favour of the respondent by following the

principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in

State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 1,

without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the

petitioners. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the

Writ Petition by setting aside the order, dated 09.10.2020

passed in O.A.No.478 of 2020 by the Tribunal, as admittedly,

the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in

Rafiq Masih's case (supra 1) would not attract.

4. This Court, having considered the submission made by

the Standing Counsel for the petitioners, is of the view that

the issue raised in the present case is squarely covered by

the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in

Rafiq Masih's case (supra 1). Hence the Tribunal was

justified in allowing the O.A. in favour of the respondent.

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the

orders passed by the Tribunal.

    (2015) 4 SCC 334
                                                  AKS,J & ETD,J
                           ::3::                  wp_17510_2021

5. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is

dismissed. No order as to costs.

6. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any,

shall stand closed.

_________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

_____________________________ TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J Date: 27.02.2025 prat